This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
How an embattled energy storage project in Acton, California, is threatening faster federal permits.

One hour north of Los Angeles, the small town of Acton is experiencing a battery energy storage buildout — and quickly becoming the must-watch frontline in the backlash against lithium-ion energy storage systems. The flashpoint: wildfires.
Like many parts of California, Acton has hot summers with heavy winds, putting it at elevated risk of the kind blaze that makes national headlines. Battery storage fires, while rare, are a unique threat, with relatively little data available about them to help regulators or the public understand the risk. People in Acton wondered: Would they really be safe if a wildfire engulfed a battery storage site, or if a battery failure sparked a new conflagration?
When L.A. County blessed the first battery energy storage system project in Acton last year, developers and local fire officials said they were doing everything in their power to ensure the batteries would meet safety standards. Residents were far from convinced.
“This will turn our community into industrial hell and it’ll erase us from the face of the Earth,” Jacqueline Ayer, a member of Acton’s town council, told me. Ayer is helping lead the local fight against the projects.
I’ve now spent more than a month researching the fight in Acton. In the process, I’ve learned how much — or little — we know about when battery energy storage and wildfires mix. We’ll get to that later in this story. To be honest, debunking battery fire risk wasn’t why I spent a month on Acton. It was what happened when the fears took hold.
Feeling they’d been failed by both the regulatory approval process and the court system, the Acton project’s opponents turned to their representative in Washington, House Republican Mike Garcia. Though Garcia can’t do anything to stop this particular project, he can severely hinder future ones: As Heatmap can exclusively report, after lobbying from Acton, Garcia inserted language into the annual funding bill for the Department of Energy that would block it from implementing a new rule designed to expedite permits for federally funded battery projects.
“What we’re hoping is that [with Garcia] being at the federal level, he’ll shed some light to the people at the top,” said Ruthie Brock of the activist group Acton Takes Action, “because if the top becomes informed, it’ll trickle down to local governments.”
This is why the Acton fight is so important — it demonstrates the risk of failing to obtain community buy-in, which can ricochet in ways no one intended. The political and media environments are quick to sensationalize the downsides of renewable energy, creating a tinderbox atmosphere in which small local fights can quickly become national ones.
On some level, a fight over battery fires going national was inevitable. Across the country, from New York to Washington state, communities are revolting against battery energy storage sites coming to their backyards. Often, those opposed cite the feared threat of fires or explosions.
Fires in battery energy storage systems, a.k.a. BESS, are quite rare. According to what data is available, the number of fires has stayed relatively flat even as deployment has grown drastically. There were fewer than 10 failure events in the U.S. in 2023, and there have been even fewer so far this year.
But when a fire does happen, experts say it can be quite difficult to put out. In some cases, there’s nothing a community can do other than let the blaze run.
“There’s a lack of consensus. There’s a lot of experts out there providing guidance, and that’s something we’re trying to work on with training throughout the country,” Victoria Hutchinson, an engineer with the Fire Protection Research Foundation, told me. “[It’ll] instill some fear in the meantime we figure out the best approach.”
Information on BESS and wildfires is even less available. Guillermo Rein, a professor of fire science and the editor-in-chief of the journal Fire Technology, told me the matter has not really been studied.
“When I say [BESS are] new, I mean really new,” Rein said. “We hardly know how it works when it gets [on] fire and we don’t have many technologies that are proven to work. We have technologies that we wish will work, but proven technologies that work are very rare. That means we have a new hazard we are struggling to understand and in the meantime, we don’t know how to protect against it.”
Los Angeles County approved Acton’s first battery storage system — Humidor, a 300 megawatt project by Hecate Energy — last summer through an expedited “ministerial” process, the local equivalent of a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act. Ministerial reviews and categorical exclusions are used by regulators to skip the drawn out process of an environmental review because they can reasonably predict a lack of significant impact. Joseph Horvath, a spokesperson for L.A. County Planning, gave me a statement defending the approval and stating BESS projects must meet all local and state zoning and fire codes to receive a ministerial approval.
California had identified the Acton community back in 2021 as a potential site for energy storage to protect against future power shut offs. Acton made sense because it’s close to the SoCal Edison Vincent substation, making it well positioned to connect to the grid. There was also a real sense of urgency: To achieve its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, the state estimates it will need to install a projected 52,000 megawatts or more of battery storage. Humidor is the first of what appears to be multiple projects being planned for the area, including two more Hecate facilities according to materials on the company’s website.
Convinced that a battery boom could mix poorly with extreme fire risk, and that the county moved far too fast to approve Humidor, Acton residents sued. The county, they argued, had little reason to conclude the facility would have an insignificant impact on the environment — so few BESS projects have been approved that the county used the standards from a different kind of project — an electrical substation — to draw that conclusion. L.A. County Planning told me they chose this comparison for reasons including the “purpose of BESS and its connection to the larger network for distributive purposes.”
Rein told me that at least when it comes to the fire risk, this isn’t an accurate comparison, and that there’s not actually enough data to claim such a facility would have an insignificant impact. “I would put great efforts into making sure this facility is safe,” he said. “They can’t just say, I met the regulation, I did enough. Because it’s a new hazard.”
Many of those in Acton opposed to the project believe the approval was rushed, and claim that little information was made available to the public as it was going through the county’s process. Furious residents have told county planners that the Acton town council was not notified in advance that an approval was on its way. They testified before the county board of supervisors that Hecate held only a single public meeting to discuss what it intended to build, with little notice given to potentially concerned citizens.
In my experience as a journalist reporting on large energy projects with serious community impacts, transparency is key to getting local buy-in to build a project. For years I covered the mining industry, where innumerable decades of toxic waste spills and labor scandals have forced companies to really innovate and spend serious dough on obtaining “social license to operate,” a term developers and investors use to describe acceptance to a company’s business practices.
This, of course, differs from the YIMBY school of thought that companies and governments should eschew frustrated municipalities to pursue the overriding net good of climate action. There are certainly merits to this argument, especially when it comes to communities that won’t take yes for an answer, and we’ll be exploring case studies supporting that view in future editions of The Fight.
I’m on the fence about whether Acton is one of those cases, though. Ayer, an environmental engineer by trade, told me she supports decarbonization and wants to see climate action happen. She just wants to feel assured the technology is safe.
If it wasn’t a lithium-ion battery storage facility “I would feel comfortable,” she said. “We will shoulder some of the weight. But it isn’t right that we shoulder all of the weight.”
When I tried to talk to Hecate about Acton’s wildfire concerns and how the company had engaged with the community, a company spokesperson, Bobby Howard, declined to make anyone available for an interview citing “ongoing litigation related to the subject.” Howard provided a factbook that said only that Humidor would “meet or exceed” local and state fire codes — without specifying which codes — and detailed some of the outreach the company did, including the public meeting as well as mailers to “thousands of individuals throughout the greater Los Angeles area, including civically engaged individuals throughout Acton.”
Howard declined to answer questions requesting more information about the company’s public outreach and wildfire planning. He did tell the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that Humidor would have “seismic bracing, safety zones around the perimeter, substantial setbacks from parcel boundaries, gravel breaks and a masonry wall around the facility.”
Stanford University senior research scholar and legal energy expert Michael Wara explained to me that in cases like these, having buy-in from the community is important to avoiding litigation and social blowback. “That is losing,” Wara said. “You have not served your client if you end up in litigation.”
“Having a process by which people are informed about a project and have an opportunity to provide input is important for buy-in for all kinds of projects related to the energy transition if you want to build in a democratic society,” he said. “Is it really the fire risk the community is concerned about?”
When it comes to the Acton battery fight, it’s the fears of fire that scare me the most, not the fire itself.
I sought reasons to be optimistic about putting battery energy storage in areas like Acton that are prone to wildfire because, well, California is essentially one big fire risk zone. James Campbell, a wildfire policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that battery energy storage decreases net wildfire risk compared to gas storage tanks and pipelines. “If we consider the whole-climate trade-offs, battery systems are much safer,” he said.
On its end, Hecate claimed in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors that a BESS fire has never traveled off-site, and that because the fires are fueled by flammable gasses, there is minimal risk of embers traveling elsewhere and igniting grass or bushes. The company pointed me to this letter when I reached out for comment.
“Nothing about fire risk mitigation is about certainty. It’s more, risk mitigation and fire is kind of like wearing a seatbelt,” Wara told me. “If you’re going 120 miles an hour down the highway and you get in a high-speed collision, your seatbelt will not save you. [But] there’s rapid advances in how these systems work.”
In the end, he added, meeting California’s carbon emissions targets will “probably mean building somewhere that there is non-trivial wildfire risk.”
What’s happening to offshore wind should be a cautionary tale for developers considering whether sinking time and money into community relations is really worth it: Last year, coastal fishermen and beach town mayors in New Jersey joined forces with fossil fuel funding and right-wing agitators to foment a conspiracy-infused campaign against offshore wind that has truly rattled the future of the industry.
Part of that offshore wind backlash grew out of New Jersey Republicans in Congress using the pulpit of their offices and filing amendments to legislation. As Garcia takes up Acton’s cause, I do wonder whether battery energy storage might be next. November’s election makes it less likely his language hindering expedited approvals for BESS projects will make it into the final funding bill, and Garcia’s office did not respond to requests to discuss its prospects.
But regardless, it’s an ember that could become a fire of its own.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A chat with Colette Lamontagne, senior director for electric power at Ceres.
This week’s conversation is with Colette Lamontagne, senior director for electric power at the sustainability finance advocacy group Ceres. Her team just released a shareholder engagement guide for the utility space around data center development. I’ve been wondering when the ESG crowd would enter into the AI infrastructure fray, so I asked if I could chat with Colette about what the guide could teach my lovely readers and whether the data center backlash portends a new wave of boardroom fights between electric companies and institutional investors.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is the big message of this guide? If you were to talk about this over a coffee, what would be the topline takeaway?
These data centers are coming, but they can be done right. They don’t have to be done in a way that negatively impacts energy, water, and communities, and we need to slow down just enough to be able to do it right.
It’s not a guide about what data centers should do — it's a guide on the risks to the electric power sector. The biggest risk is the magnitude of power needed and the timing — how quickly it’s needed. Because of that, the traditional process for electric utilities can’t keep pace. It’s all regulated. There’s a lot of steps they have to go through to build new transmission infrastructure and new generation. If the grid connected companies can’t keep up the pace, data centers will just build their own generation. And the biggest problem with that? You have all these resources not shared by the users.
Do you think data centers are going to create a new wave of ESG-based investor advocacy?
I haven’t thought about it as a new age for ESG, but that’s a good point. We are moving beyond asking companies about targets and to create transition plans. Now we’re looking at how to accelerate solutions for climate impacts. I do think there’s a new age related to that.
When it comes to data centers, the questions aren't about utilities and their targets, but instead how they’ll meet this need so they don’t go back to old coal plants or [build] new [behind the meter] plants not used by the grid.
Should we anticipate some kind of new shareholder advocacy wave around how integrated utilities and power companies address or mitigate the impacts of the data center boom on meeting their resource plans, especially decisions made as a result of shareholder advocacy on climate?
If a data center comes to a utility and says they need 100 megawatts of power and the utility chooses to serve that with coal or gas instead of new renewables, it will impact their clean energy goals. If they say they signed a power purchase agreement and give all these renewable resources to a data center, that’s not new — you’re still impacting your clean energy goals because then you’re taking the renewables away from other customers. You have to build something else for those other customers. What are you building instead?
How they think about their long-term resource plans is really important. These generation sources will be around for a very long time. In most cases, renewable energy is cheaper to build. Gas plants require a four- or five-year wait for turbines. So not only is it better for the environment but better for business to get these renewables built.
I’ve written a lot about data center water use. The guide goes into the energy sector’s water use impacts from this increased power demand from data centers; specifically, it says investors should consider asking utilities to conduct new comprehensive water risk assessments around it. Can you help my readers and I better understand what this kind of assessment is and why companies should consider doing this?
Different types of electric generation facilities use different amounts of water. Some of it is withdrawn and put back. Some of it is withdrawn and consumed. Those matter. In cases when water is drawn and put back, the temperature goes up — that’s impacting the environment.
It’s an interesting dichotomy. The new technologies that use air cooling use less water, but they use more energy. Then you have to think about what electricity you’re using and how much water that electricity is using. It’s the life-cycle impacts.
Is there any kind of risk for investors or energy companies associated with the data center sector, given its political challenges?
Well, utilities usually get the short end of the straw. They always get blamed for everything. I say that with a laugh because I used to work for a utility.
Some of these companies have an obligation to serve. If someone comes to them and says they need power, they are required to provide it. However, they can protect themselves and other ratepayers. If the utility builds a whole generation plant and all this transmission infrastructure to serve one data center, and then the data center gets canceled, yeah that’s a risk — not to the bottom line of the utility but to their reputation.
Plus more on this week’s biggest development fights.
1. Washtenaw County, Michigan — The Mitten State made itself the center of the data center backlash this week, as multiple AI skeptics won key Democratic congressional primaries. Yet the most significant election result wasn’t a primary vote, but rather a quiet referendum in a small town outside Ann Arbor.
2. Travis County, Texas — I’ve been getting a lot of texts from sources about Texas Governor Greg Abbott issuing a stop to data center permitting. Let’s get into what really is happening here.
3. Jefferson County, Missouri — Data center opposition can win a Republican political primary, too, as demonstrated this week in this rural pocket of the Show-Me State.
4. Santa Clara County, California — We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a warning about the dire political straits of battery storage technology.
The agency is reportedly considering a land swap that would allow AI infrastructure in one of northern Virginia’s largest green spaces.
A national park site and Civil War conflict area in Virginia is now a battleground in the fight over data center development on federal real estate — and Congress is starting to get involved.
On July 23, the Prince William Times reported that Trump’s National Park Service is “considering a land swap” to allow “at least four data centers” on land within the boundaries of Prince William Forest Park in northern Virginia, one of the largest green spaces in the Washington D.C. metro area and a flashpoint during the Civil War. Since then, my colleagues and I have confirmed based on interviews with sources familiar with the plan, public lobbying disclosures, and previously unreported correspondence from Congress to the Park Service that, indeed, there has been a concerted behind-the-scenes effort to make this swap happen, going back more than a year. Many of those concerned about the idea of this exchange told me they’ve been unable to get clear answers from the Park Service on the likelihood of the swap.
Here’s what we do know: A data center development company, Highland Digital, under an LLC registered by their legal counsel, has sought permission from Prince William County to build a large tech infrastructure complex next to the park, at a site other companies have sought to rezone for that purpose since at least 2022. Though the land is within the park’s boundaries, it is not actually owned by the park; it was held by a private entity before the site was established, enabling it to be used for development through a quirk in public land use law colloquially known as “inholding.”
Meanwhile, the data center backlash has made siting new projects in Northern Virginia increasingly difficult. In Prince William County specifically, supervisors rejected a large data center project near Dulles Airport last month. The sort of land Highland Digital has access to would be challenging to develop in this political environment, given that county planning office staff said it also included wetlands and streams that made permitting difficult.
So as Highland Digital struggled to get permission, it came up with a Plan B, according to two local park conservation advocates familiar with the project’s progress: It could swap some of the land in the park with other parcels close by owned by the Park Service without as much ecological sensitivity. The company retained a lobbyist, Jeff Small, who was a senior adviser to the Interior Department under the first Trump administration and last year publicly boasted of close ties to the White House (which distanced itself from him in response). Small lobbied the National Park Service and Interior Department for a land exchange on Highland Digital’s behalf starting in May 2025 through the first quarter of this year, according to federal lobbying disclosures.
Around this time, Ashley Studholme, executive director of the Prince William Conservation Alliance, first learned about the land swap proposal. Studholme told me Highland Digital CEO Peter Batten proposed the idea to the park’s superintendent George Liffert in a meeting the three had that month with Small in attendance. Highland Digital provided Studholme and Liffert with a map she shared with me outlining different parcels that would be involved. Studholme said that afterwards, nearly identical parcel delineations were then added to an official National Park Service GIS map online. This meeting and map change assertion were first reported by the Prince William Times.
Kyle Hart, a senior program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, told me his organization has had “loose discussions” with Park Service staff about the land swap, which he described as “a newer thing” that “we know has been proposed.”
In response to my request for comment, NPS sent the following statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: “The National Park Service preserves the historic, cultural and natural integrity of national parks, including Prince William Forest Park. The NPS does not regulate private land use outside park boundaries or comment on speculative uses.”
On paper, Hart told me, the swap has some upsides for NPS. The Park Service would get more land in the deal than Highland Digital would acquire. It could also permanently protect sensitive resources. But the cumulative impact of the exchange, he said, is unambiguously in Highland Digital’s favor.
“The developer comes out ahead,” he told me. “You combine that with another 100 or so acres [they hold] that is direct road frontage, and you have land primed for development without any of the hiccups of pesky streams and so forth. And they’d be doing this to expedite a data center within their borders directly adjacent to the land they’re protecting.”
In mid-July, before the Prince William Times story published, staff for Representative Eugene Vindman — the Democratic congressman whose district includes the park — contacted the Park Service requesting “reports of a potential exchange or transfer of land within Prince William Forest Park. The inquiry asked for information on deed ownership as well as any legal authority for the Park Service to exchange land with a private corporation for development without congressional approval.
Vindman’s staff provided their request to me this week, informing me they never heard back.
“I’m very concerned about the proposed data center development in and near Prince William Forest Park,” Vindman said in a statement his office provided. “I have been clear that data centers should not be built near parks, schools, or residential communities, and I’ll continue to fight for our community on this issue.”
Very little about Highland Digital or its data center plans is available online, while Data Center Dynamics, a trade publication, has reported that details about the data center are “sparse.” A public meeting to discuss the project planned for the parcel the company currently owns was scheduled for May, but was then canceled after the developer rescinded a permitting application with Prince William County without a stated reason.
Highland Digital did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did representatives from Jeff Small’s firm, 76 Group, who was registered to lobby for the developer on behalf of EIS Solutions, the firm’s name before it rebranded in 2021. Small’s contact information is not public and I was unable to reach him for this story.
With reporting by Matthew Zeitlin.